The dismissal of an employee for alleged misconduct must be substantiated by clear evidence; failure to prove the charge renders the dismissal arbitrary and unjust.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms. Dharmishta Raval for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Suman Motla for respondent No.3 – State.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :

2.1 The petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-cashier in the respondent Bank on 22.05.1981 and served with the Bank till the petitioner’s services were dismissed. The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 20.09.2009. The charge- sheet memo came to be issued on 30.08.2008 to the petitioner for holding a departmental inquiry into the charge inter-alia that at the time of appointment, the petitioner submitted a false caste certificate. The said charge-sheet was replied by the petitioner by letter dated 22.11.2008. An inquiry officer was appointed to hold departmental inquiry, who after holding the same, as per the report dated 12.03.2009 found the charge proved against the petitioner. (Annexure-C).

2.2 Respondent No.2 sent a copy of the above report to the petitioner by the letter dated 11.04.2009 calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply against inquiry report (Annexure- D). The petitioner submitted his reply to the said report on 23.04.2009 (Annexure-E). The show cause notice dated 15.06.2009 was issued to the petitioner against the penalty of “dismissal without notice” (Annexure-F). The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 14.07.2009. The petitioner was also granted opportunity of hearing on 17.07.2009 and on the said date, the petitioner submitted his further reply. On 20.07.2009, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service and the suspension period was treated as such. (Annexure-I).

3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20.07.2009, the petitioner preferred appeal before the competent authority, which also came to be rejected by the order dated 18.12.2009. Being aggrieved with by the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities dated 20.07.2009 (Annexure-I) and order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure-J). The petitioner herein constrained to approach this Court invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for with the following reliefs.

“20) The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order:

A) Quashing and setting aside the orders dt. 20.7.2009 and 18.12.2009 and directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all the consequential benefits.

B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.

C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.”

4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid it is submitted that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner produced caste certificate dated 29.01.1975 issued by the Samaja Kalyan Adhikari, Rajkot to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Vankar caste which is scheduled caste. (Annexure-A). It was submitted that the petitioner correctly stated in the application form that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and there is no charge that Vankar was not scheduled caste at the relevant point of time. It was stated that the petitioner has submitted school leaving certificate dated 02.06.1969 which also mentioned Vankar castes (Annexure-L). Such certificates were produced before the respondent authorities upon having been received by the petitioner from the respective authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner had not placed on record any false certificate. There was no charge that the petitioner had manipulated or managed any false certificate and in view thereof, the petitioner is not guilty of misconduct as stated in the charge sheet. It is submitted that the said documents/ certificates is held to be false either in any court proceedings or disciplinary proceedings, the same can not said to be false certificate. In disciplinary proceedings, the documen